SUBSCRIBE | NEWSLETTERS | MAPS | VIDEOS | BLOGS | MARKETPLACE | CONTESTS
TRY BACKPACKER FREE!
SUBSCRIBE NOW and get
2 Free Issues and 3 Free Gifts!
Full Name:
Address 1:
Address 2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email: (required)
If I like it and decide to continue, I'll pay just $12.00, and receive a full one-year subscription (9 issues in all), a 73% savings off the newsstand price! If for any reason I decide not to continue, I'll write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing.
Your subscription includes 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Or click here to pay now and get 2 extra issues
Offer valid in US only.


» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Page 1 of 212>>

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: The militia wins one in CA< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
 Post Number: 1
markinOhio Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 629
Joined: Feb. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 13 2014, 8:01 pm  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news....nal_pop

Hopefully, the next step is the Supreme Court solidifying the individual right to carry a gun for self-defense.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 2
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43949
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 13 2014, 9:42 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

As they've already stated:  not any time, not any place and not any thing.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 3
Montanalonewolf Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7216
Joined: Mar. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 13 2014, 9:57 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(High_Sierra_Fan @ Feb. 13 2014, 7:42 pm)
QUOTE
As they've already stated:  not any time, not any place and not any thing.

So.... how  many bad guys obey those laws?

--------------
If you are free to be a Liberal- Thank a person with a gun.

Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 4
Walkinman Search for posts by this member.
A rainbow
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7527
Joined: Nov. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 13 2014, 10:08 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

"bad guys" don't obey a whole host of laws. Your thinking seems to suggest we just do away with all of them?

--------------
Guided Alaska backpacking and hiking trips

"What good is a used up world and how can it be worth having?" -- Sting, All This Time.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 5
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43949
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 13 2014, 10:11 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montanalonewolf @ Feb. 13 2014, 6:57 pm)
QUOTE

(High_Sierra_Fan @ Feb. 13 2014, 7:42 pm)
QUOTE
As they've already stated:  not any time, not any place and not any thing.

So.... how  many bad guys obey those laws?

And murderers, murder. So, let the consequence free killing commence? Drop ALL laws from the books ?

Bad guys and all.....

Not hardly.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 6
Montanalonewolf Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7216
Joined: Mar. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 13 2014, 10:32 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Not at all but taking away a citizen's right of self defense against the ones who already don't obey laws is immoral and unethical.

--------------
If you are free to be a Liberal- Thank a person with a gun.

Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 7
Drift Woody Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6645
Joined: Feb. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 13 2014, 10:42 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Happiness is a warm gun.
Bang bang, shoot shoot.


--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 8
dayhiker9 Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5973
Joined: Apr. 2003
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 14 2014, 12:37 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

http://www.kpbs.org/news....s-rules

QUOTE
The Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that law-abiding citizens can keep handguns in the home for self-defense purposes, but didn't address whether that right extends outside the home.


--------------
" before you make assertions about numbers, look at the numbers."   Krugman
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 9
Walkinman Search for posts by this member.
A rainbow
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7527
Joined: Nov. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 14 2014, 4:56 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montanalonewolf @ Feb. 13 2014, 6:32 pm)
QUOTE
Not at all but taking away a citizen's right of self defense against the ones who already don't obey laws is immoral and unethical.

MLW

A citizen's right of self defense is not limited to shooting people.

All rights are mitigated to some degree. What is absolutely ridiculous is the continued emphatic insistence by folks such as yourself that any restrictions on gun control equate to removing one's right to self defense. This kind of discourse is idiotic.


--------------
Guided Alaska backpacking and hiking trips

"What good is a used up world and how can it be worth having?" -- Sting, All This Time.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 10
markinOhio Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 629
Joined: Feb. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 14 2014, 7:14 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

It seems to me that the California law is placing an unnatural burden of proof on an individual’s right to self-defense. That is, the authorities have to demonstrate that an individual should be prohibited from exercising their right of self-defense, rather than the burden be placed on the individual to prove that they have “good cause” to exercise that right.

I understand that many do not recognize an individual’s right to self-defense, but do you recognize that this is an unnatural burden of proof?

If not, should individuals also be required to show “good cause” to:
Speak out against the government
Worship the God of their choice….or not worship (even more frightening)
Vote
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 11
JimInMD Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 3974
Joined: Feb. 2011
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 14 2014, 7:36 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

This will be interesting to see play out.  MD also requires "good and substantial" reason to get a carry permit.  In MD it is a de facto ban on permits except for people with a few very narrowly defined reasons.  It was challenged in court and overturned by the US District Court, but the state appealed and the District Court decision was overturned by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.  From wikipedia:

QUOTE
On March 21, 2013 the Fourth Circuit unanimously reversed the District Court opinion. [4] The Circuit Court found that the trial court's judgment hinged on a finding that the rights of the Second Amendment extend outside one's own home, and that the right is "impermissibly burdened" by the "good and substantial cause" requirement. The Court found that, while the "good cause" requirement does indeed infringe upon Woollard's Second Amendment rights, the requirement nevertheless passes intermediate scrutiny (the standard previously determined applicable in Masciandaro and Chester, heard by the same Circuit), by holding that Maryland's desire to reduce handgun violence is a "substantial government interest", and that the "good cause" requirement is "reasonably fitted" to this interest in several ways, primarily by reducing the number of guns on the street, which the Court agreed with the Appellants provides several secondary effects that significantly reduce handgun violence and increase the ability of the police to distinguish criminals from law-abiding citizens.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woollard_v._Gallagher

So, we now have a circuit split.  This one should head to the USSC.


--------------
"Your number one philosophy for personal security should be a life long commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation."

The 3 Stupids Rule:

Don’t go to stupid places, with stupid people, to do stupid things.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 12
Montanalonewolf Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7216
Joined: Mar. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 14 2014, 8:56 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Walkinman @ Feb. 14 2014, 2:56 am)
QUOTE

(Montanalonewolf @ Feb. 13 2014, 6:32 pm)
QUOTE
Not at all but taking away a citizen's right of self defense against the ones who already don't obey laws is immoral and unethical.

MLW

A citizen's right of self defense is not limited to shooting people.

All rights are mitigated to some degree. What is absolutely ridiculous is the continued emphatic insistence by folks such as yourself that any restrictions on gun control equate to removing one's right to self defense. This kind of discourse is idiotic.

I've never said there should be no restrictions.
In fact I've have stated several times what I believe the requirements should be for public carry.
What I object to is a locale passing laws saying no lawabiding citizen can have one at all or makes restrictions so onerous that it's virtually impossible to get any kind of permit.


--------------
If you are free to be a Liberal- Thank a person with a gun.

Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 13
nogods Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6393
Joined: Sep. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 14 2014, 9:04 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(High_Sierra_Fan @ Feb. 13 2014, 9:42 pm)
QUOTE
As they've already stated:  not any time, not any place and not any thing.

Yes, but the opposite isn't true either - no gun by no one, no place.

Even  most guniots are uncomfortable about concluding that the 2A guanatees the right of a any non-convict in a jail or prison to posses a firearm (such as a visitor, HVAC contractor, or pre-arraignment detainee.)

Prior to Heller and McDonald, the hoplophobes seemed very comfortable claiming no one, no guns, no place.

Heller and McDonald left for another day the question of where besides the home government would be allowed to restrict the right to keep and bear arms.

We do have a split in the circuits with the 7th and 9th finding a blanket government restriction of possession of a self defense weapon outside the home a violation of the 2A.

Judge Posner of the 7th Circuit is a heavyweight in legal circles.  That's not saying he is never wrong, but he is always well reasoned.  

Hopefully the Supreme Court will be willing to take up this issue to resolve it rather than let it continue to jell in the lower courts.  

There are three cases pending cert decisions before the Supreme Court.  the court is expected to rule on the cert applications before the end of February.  

All three of those cases attempt to raise the outside the home issue, but all three could easily be decided on much narrower grounds because of their facts.

For example, a Texas case concerns whether someone between the ages of 18 and 21 has the same rights as someone over 21.  The NRA has tried to frame the issue as the right to carry outside the home, but even if the court granted cert, it could just rule on the age issue and leave the outside the home issue for another day.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 14
wycanislatrans Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2760
Joined: Nov. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 14 2014, 10:13 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I fail to see how the "militia" wins one.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 15
tamarac Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1076
Joined: Jan. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 14 2014, 10:45 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

out of the hundreds of millions of adults in the US, how many have actually needed self defense with a firearm?

Preserving this, at the expense of letting practically anybody tote around a firearm is a statistical argument that cannot be made.

Unbelievable that any rational person could not be against gun shows and psychological background checks at the very least.

2nd amendment firearm protectors at all costs have issues with emotional insecurity and fatalism. Gun ownership in the US has become a religion, based on faith instead of reason. Guns are a security blanket for people that obviously have problems at understanding how to live and not render themselves vulnerable.

IMO it is pure paranoid reactionarism by people who hate somebody taking something away from them that they just happen to like or love for some convoluted psychological reason.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 16
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43949
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 14 2014, 12:01 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(nogods @ Feb. 14 2014, 6:04 am)
QUOTE

(High_Sierra_Fan @ Feb. 13 2014, 9:42 pm)
QUOTE
As they've already stated:  not any time, not any place and not any thing.

Yes, but the opposite isn't true either - no gun by no one, no place.
.....

Of course.

But if it's free rein outside the home (and for a lot of people that issue IS black and white, all or nothing: the entire "gun free zone" chant that comes up every time there's a shooting somewhere...) I really want free rein inside the (Supreme) courtroom. Equal protection and all..... sort of along the lines of why whenever an elected official does the "firearms have no legitimate use for self defense" I, mentally at least, respond with :excellent, let's start with YOUR security detail? Same with heads of law enforcement organizations.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 17
markinOhio Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 629
Joined: Feb. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 14 2014, 12:11 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(tamarac @ Feb. 14 2014, 10:45 am)
QUOTE
out of the hundreds of millions of adults in the US, how many have actually needed self defense with a firearm?

How is that “need” going to be determined?

Should individuals be required to display “need” to exercise other rights?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 18
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4656
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 14 2014, 1:03 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

When you're discussing legal rights vs. natural rights, then yes a need is necessary. You have no natural right to firearms. You have a constitutional right to them, one based on antiquated reasons.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 19
markinOhio Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 629
Joined: Feb. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 14 2014, 1:09 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

So, you would require citizens to show necessity to exercise their legal right to vote?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 20
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4656
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 14 2014, 1:16 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

The need is established in the Constitution. No one has a natural right to vote. It's given them by the Constitution. The need to bear arms is established in the 2nd amendment, but that need no longer applies today.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 21
markinOhio Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 629
Joined: Feb. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 14 2014, 1:36 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

It is not about the right to bear arms. It is about infringing upon that established right. That is, the right to bear arms is not being questioned, it is the constitutionality of California requiring citizens to show “good cause” to exercise that right.

It is not really even about guns, it is about freedom. I don’t think that Joe Public has “good cause” to carry a gun for self-defense. In fact, I find the prospect of the weirdo next to me at REI toting a Glock particularly frightening (I also find it frightening that he votes, and worships a divine entity). However, I don’t think that he has the burden to prove “good cause” to exercise any of these rights. He should retain his rights, until there is “good cause” to prohibit those rights.

Now, if the government really wants to invalidate the 2nd Amendment since it is no longer a valid need today……Then sit back and watch Appalachia turn into Afghanistan. Them boys ain’t giving up their guns without a fight. There will quickly, once again, be a “need” to bear arms.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 22
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43949
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 14 2014, 2:00 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Walkinman @ Feb. 14 2014, 1:56 am)
QUOTE

(Montanalonewolf @ Feb. 13 2014, 6:32 pm)
QUOTE
Not at all but taking away a citizen's right of self defense against the ones who already don't obey laws is immoral and unethical.

MLW

A citizen's right of self defense is not limited to shooting people.

All rights are mitigated to some degree. What is absolutely ridiculous is the continued emphatic insistence by folks such as yourself that any restrictions on gun control equate to removing one's right to self defense. This kind of discourse is idiotic.

And "self-defense" isn't even IN the wording of the Second Amendment.

"Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

ETA: I do agree with a WashPo author:
"4. Finally, note that nothing in the opinion means that narrower regulations of gun carrying are unconstitutional. “Shall-issue” schemes that require a license to carry, but let pretty much all law-abiding adults get such a license, would likely be upheld. The same is true for restrictions on carrying in particular places, such as schools or government buildings. But a broad ban on all gun carrying in public, the court held, violates the Second Amendment."

Have explicit, openly debated and arrived at, reasons for denying a permit (and those reasons will exist, despite emotion to the contrary), burden on the regulating agency and not the applicant.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news....opinion

As I've mentioned previously: I'm Pro Choice.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 23
Marmotstew Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 9381
Joined: May 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 14 2014, 2:37 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Of all the things the government has done over the years guns are the most important issue to fight about. That's what "they" want. Fret about a BS thing like guns while the man behind the curtain meddles in our affairs LOL
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 24
BillBab Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5299
Joined: Sep. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 14 2014, 5:11 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Honestly I can't think of anyplace you (law abiding citizen) should not be able to carry a gun except in an MRI scanner

Because that would be dangerous

Seriously, all "gun free zones" do is force otherwise unnecessary gunhandling by folks carrying concealed

As far as the any time I don't think firearms know what time it is

As for any thing there might be some room for discussion here, but I seriously do not see this becoming a problem

In short....the only firearms law we really need (other than bad /crazy people restrictions) are do not cause harm with your firearm or we will come down on you like a ton of bricks

The problem with laws regarding when/where/what is that they are generally written by someone that knows zip about firearms and is more concerned with getting all the restrictions they can


--------------
"Asking liberals where wages and prices come from is like asking six-year-olds where babies come from."

Thomas Sowell
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 25
BillBab Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5299
Joined: Sep. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 14 2014, 5:14 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Walkinman @ Feb. 14 2014, 4:56 am)
QUOTE

(Montanalonewolf @ Feb. 13 2014, 6:32 pm)
QUOTE
Not at all but taking away a citizen's right of self defense against the ones who already don't obey laws is immoral and unethical.

MLW

A citizen's right of self defense is not limited to shooting people.

All rights are mitigated to some degree. What is absolutely ridiculous is the continued emphatic insistence by folks such as yourself that any restrictions on gun control equate to removing one's right to self defense. This kind of discourse is idiotic.

Yes...but those limits on rights are generally not directed at the means of exercising that right.

Pre-emptive laws mostly find their way to the 2A

We don't take away your ability to speak to prevent you from shouting fire in a crowded movie theater


--------------
"Asking liberals where wages and prices come from is like asking six-year-olds where babies come from."

Thomas Sowell
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 26
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43949
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 15 2014, 12:06 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

"As far as the any time I don't think firearms know what time it is"

Well, we all know guns don't tell time, people tell time.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 27
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43949
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 15 2014, 12:26 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(High_Sierra_Fan @ Feb. 13 2014, 6:42 pm)
QUOTE
As they've already stated:  not any time, not any place and not any thing.

More precisely:
"III
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts rou- tinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For exam- ple, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws impos- ing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
26
We also recognize another important limitation on the
right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have lim- ited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZO
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 28
BillBab Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5299
Joined: Sep. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 15 2014, 10:36 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

So historically you could not carry what...a cannon?

I think the limitation was more about convenience than laws

And the same would be true today

Gang bangers are not carrying long guns despite their increased power and accuracy because they are inconvenient

Most all of the "scary weapons" are already illegal so what is the fear of allowing unrestricted carry?

People are not going to carry rocket launchers and submachine guns because they are already illegal

Once again we fall back to the "one more law will finally fix the problem" (il)logic

As for govt offices and schools

Some anti-gun bozo just carried his weapon into a school and the only bad thing that happened was he got caught

In fact, plenty of folks think he should get off because he "meant no harm"

Get it....intent is everything....the mere presence of a weapon means nothing

Otherwise police stations and gun stores would be the most dangerous places on the planet

People get all bent out of shape about carrying where alcohol is served but I have not seen MADD pass a law against carrying car keys in a bar

It is not illegal to drink, it is illegal to drink too much and drive

So make it illegal to drink too much and carry...and as far as I am concerned, too much to carry can be any at all

Instead we keep piling up more and more restrictions until you need to carry your attorney along with your sidearm

Insanity


--------------
"Asking liberals where wages and prices come from is like asking six-year-olds where babies come from."

Thomas Sowell
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 29
Montanalonewolf Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7216
Joined: Mar. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 15 2014, 11:13 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

QUOTE
rocket launchers and submachine guns because they are alreadyillegal

Actually they're not. Both can be acquired with the proper permits.


--------------
If you are free to be a Liberal- Thank a person with a gun.

Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 30
nogods Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6393
Joined: Sep. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 15 2014, 12:04 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE


(HighGravity @ Feb. 14 2014, 1:03 pm)
QUOTE
When you're discussing legal rights vs. natural rights, then yes a need is necessary. You have no natural right to firearms. You have a constitutional right to them, one based on antiquated reasons.

Maybe you need to re-read Heller and McDonald.

The 2A doesn't create the right to keep and bear arms.  That is a historical right that the 2A guarantees will not be infringed by the government.

The answer to those who don't want the 2A to preserve that right is to work for amendment of the Constitution rather than to try to politically emasculate the right by unconstitutional laws.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
41 replies since Feb. 13 2014, 8:01 pm < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]


Page 1 of 212>>
reply to topic new topic new poll

» Quick Reply The militia wins one in CA
iB Code Buttons
You are posting as:

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code



Get 2 FREE Trial Issues and 3 FREE GIFTS
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
The Best Trails in America
YES! Please send me my FREE trial issues of Backpacker
and my 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Full Name:
City:
Address 1:
Zip Code:
State:
Address 2:
Email (required):
Free trial offer valid for US subscribers only. Canadian subscriptions | International subscriptions